User:Srmcg/Dura-Europos synagogue/Smuppaneni Peer Review

I really like the flow of the article, it doesn’t start with grounding like other articles which startled me at first and got me searching for that primarily. I think introducing the theme of the topic at hand (wall-paintings) was the beginning of a good flow. Does the citation in previous sentences in the first paragraph also include information about the claims you make about the Biblical wall paintings being contained in three registers in the last few sentences? I find the information in the first and second section to be about the same point, so why split into two sections? There might be something I’m missing because I’m not as familiar with the Dura-Europos as you are. I understand why the information about the ceiling was specifically split into a separate section (quite long and impressive if I may add). I think though there is a lot of information under the ceiling section, citations were perfectly placed frequently, wherever new claims were made and new information about the tiles and patterns were added. Is there a citation for the information in the final paragraph about the inscribed tiles being written in Greek or Aramaic?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)